3 The State Requests Oral Argument Only If Appellant Argues No CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS JANET MARIE VICKERS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas Cause No. F I STATE'S BRIEF Counsel of Record: CRAIG WATKINS Criminal District Attorney DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ALEXIS E. HERNANDEZ Assistant District Attorney State Bar No Frank Crowley Bldg. 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB. 19 Dallas, Texas (214) I I (214) (FAX) ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES... iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... 1 ARGUMENT... 1 RESPONSES TO SOLE ISSUE... 2 This appellate court cannot find error in the trial court's imposition of SAFP treatment as a condition of community supervision because Appellant cannot complain of the imposition of the condition for the first time on appeal... 2 The record supports the trial court's implied findings for placing Appellant in SAFP treatment as a condition of community supervision... 2 PRAYER... 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... 9 ii

6 TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: The State of Texas submits this brief in reply to the brief of Appellant, Janet Marie Vickers. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On November 10, 2011, Appellant appeared before the court on her open plea of guilty to the allegations of an indictment charging her with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. (CR:9, 14; RR2:1, 5). Appellant, her attorney, the prosecutor, and the trial judge signed an open plea agreement by which Appellant judicially confessed that she committed the indicted offense. (CR:13-15; See also CR:16). The trial court found that the evidence substantiated Appellant's guilt, deferred a finding of guilt, and placed her on community supervision for seven years and assessed a $2500 fine. (CR:17-18). As a condition of probation, the court ordered Appellant to attend, participate, and successfully complete substance abuse felony program (SAFP) treatment. (CR:14-15, 18; RR2:13). Appellant filed her notice of appeal on January 10, (CR:39). SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Appellant cannot complain of the imposition of SAFP treatment as a condition of probation for the first time on appeal. Therefore, Appellant's sole point on appeal should be overruled for failure to preserve it for appellate review. If the unpreserved complaint is reviewed, the record supports the implied findings of the trial court. ARGUMENT 1

7 RESPONSES TO SOLE ISSUE This appellate court cannot find error in the trial court's imposition of SAFP treatment as a condition of community supervision because Appellant cannot complain of the imposition of the condition for the first time on appeal. The record supports the trial court's implied findings for placing Appellant in SAFP treatment as a condition of community supervision. Appellant's Contention In her sole point on appeal, Appellant contends: 1) that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to substance abuse felony program (hereinafter "SAFP") without making the necessary affirmative findings under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art (Vernon 2006), and 2) that the record does not support the presumption of these findings. (App. Br. at pp.4-6). Pertinent Facts During her open plea hearing, although Appellant did not testify directly to drug use, it is very much implied that she has used in the past and that she would benefit from the SAFP program. The record first implies this benefit is needed during the following exchange: [Appellant's Counsel:] You understand that probation is recommending that you enter into the SAFPF program, substance abuse felony program? You understand that? [Appellant:] Yes, ma'am. Q. Now, you don't want to do that, correct? A. No, ma'am. 2

8 Q. Now, you have an open [CPS] case with regards to one or more of your children, correct? A. Just one. Q. And you have been ordered by them when you get out of here to go into a drug treatment facility, correct? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. So that was your intention, was to do outpatient when you got out of jail? A. No. I've got to do inpatient. * * * * Q. All right. So what you're telling the Judge is that you do not want to participate in the recommended SAFPF program that the probation officers are recommending as a condition of your probation, but that you do agree you need treatment. And you're agreeing to do treatment with the CPS program once you are released if the Judge will not send you to the SAFPF program as a condition of your probation? A. Yes, ma'am. (RR2:10-11) (all errors in original). Ultimately, she asked the court not to impose SAFP treatment as a condition of her community supervision because she essentially preferred to attend only the Turtle Creek inpatient facility in relation to her CPS case. [Appellant's Counsel]: Judge, if you could see your way to let her waive the SAFPF and then do the inpatient under CPS, then she'd still get the drug treatment she needs. And we can certainly look into more research with that, and then the State wouldn't be paying for the SAFPF program. There would be another agency that would be, and Ms. Vickers can assure you that she's going to do it and give you-- [Appellant]: Yes. [Appellant's Counsel]: -- some type of guaranty that she would go into this program. 3

9 (RR2:12-13}. [Appellant]: Yes. Because I've already, Your Honor, finished psychological evaluation, individual counsel, drug and alcohol assessment and parenting classes. And I've got to take random drug tests. So I would like to be recommended here. At the conclusion of Appellant's testimony, the trial court took judicial notice of the CATS evaluation and additionally found the evidence substantiated Appellant's guilt, deferred adjudication of guilt, and placed Appellant on community supervision. (RR2: 12-13). SAFP treatment was imposed as a condition of community supervision. (RR2:13). The record reflects that the trial court then made the following findings on the record pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12, section 14: THE COURT: Well, so is the Court, and that's why I think we'd better go ahead and, based on a criminal record that goes back to at least 1985, give her the most help we can give her and that would be SAFPF. The Court will follow the plea bargain agreement. The Court does find the evidence presented substantiates the defendant's guilt for the offense of aggravated assault as charged in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt but will not make a finding of guilt at this time and place the defendant on 7 years' unadjudicated community supervision with a $2,500 fine and make SAFPF as a condition of probation. And, Ms. Vickers, hopefully, you're going to complete this because you're looking at 20 years in the-- in the joint. (RR2:13). Appellant did not then object either to the imposition of SAFP or any lack of findings. (RR2: 13-14). Applicable Principles of Law and Conclusions Error not preserved 4

10 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art (a), (b) provides that SAFP treatment may be ordered as a condition of community supervision for any felony, other than certain enumerated sex offenses, if the judge makes the requisite findings regarding the role of drug or alcohol abuse in the commission of the offense and that the defendant is a suitable candidate for SAFP. In the present case, the trial court did specify the reason he ordered Appellant to attend, participate in, and successfully complete SAFP treatment: "based on a criminal record that goes back to at least 1985, [to] give her the most help [the court] can give her and that would be SAFPF," and it is the State's position that the record does reflect the two affirmative findings required by the Code. See /d. at 14 (b) (3}. Assuming arguendo, even if the record did not reflect the two affirmative findings required under art , Appellant did not object to the failure of the trial court to make explicit findings on the record or to the imposition of SAFP. Appellant has failed to preserve error for review; it is too late for Appellant to raise her complaint that this condition was improperly imposed. In Kennedy v. State, Nos CR and CR, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 1764 (Tex. App.- Dallas Mar. 17, 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication), Kennedy complained that the trial court erred in each case by making his confinement in a substance abuse treatment facility a condition of his probation. Much like Appellant's current argument, Kennedy argued that the trial court could not impose such a 5

11 condition without making an affirmative finding that drug or alcohol abuse significantly contributed to the commission of the crimes. This Court recognized that under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art , 14, a judge may make confinement in a substance abuse treatment facility a condition of a defendant's probation only if the judge makes affirmative findings that (1) drug or alcohol abuse significantly contributed to the commission of the crime and (2) the defendant is a suitable candidate for treatment, as determined by the suitability criteria established by the Texas Board of Criminal Justice.!d. at *2. However, this Court noted that Kennedy did not object to any of his probation conditions after they were imposed at trial or in a motion for new trial.!d. at *3. Therefore, it overruled Kennedy's complaint because he had waived it. See id. citing Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530, (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (finding a defendant who benefits from the contractual privilege of probation, the granting of which does not involve a systemic right or prohibition, must complain at trial to conditions he finds objectionable; because Speth did not object at trial to the imposition of the conditions, the court of appeals erred in holding Speth could complain about the community supervision conditions for the first time on appeal). The State also notes that this Court quite recently upheld this line of logic in an almost identical case to the one at hand. See generally, McNeal v. State, No CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4417 (Tex. App. Dallas June 4, 2012) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 6

12 Ultimately, because Appellant did not object to any absence of explicit findings or to the imposition of SAFP treatment when it was imposed as a condition of her community supervision, this Court cannot hear these complaints for the first time on appeal. Tex. R. App. P 33.1(a). Appellant's point should be overruled for failure to preserve it for appellate review. Record supports implied findings If this Court chooses to address this unpreserved allegation of error, it should apply the well established rule that when a trial judge fails to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is presumed that the court made the necessary findings to support its decision. Vela v. State, 871 S.W.2d 815, (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.) (where no findings of fact on a motion to suppress are filed, the appellate court will presume that the trial court made findings necessary to support its ruling so long as those implied findings are supported by the record); Ice v. State, 914 S.W.2d 694, 695 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (where the defendant complains of the trial court's failure to make affirmative findings to allow the court to impose SAFP treatment as a condition of community supervision, the appellate court presumed that the trial court made the required findings, so long as those implied findings were supported by the record). In the present case, this Court must determine whether the trial court's imposition of SAFP treatment as a condition of community supervision is supported by the record. The entire record must be reviewed to determine whether 7

13 there are any facts that lend support for any theory upon which the trial court's decision can be sustained. If the implied or actual finding is supported by the record, it must be sustained. See Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The record shows that the trial court took judicial notice of Appellant's CATS evaluation. (RR2:12). Appellant also agreed twice on the record that she needed drug treatment and testified that she did not want to go to SAFP, "because CPS already had said they were going to place [her] in [] rehab and was paying for it." (RR3:12-13). She subsequently repeated that because she had completed preliminary steps for inpatient treatment that she preferred to attend the Turtle Creek facility. (RR3:12-13). Appellant also submitted a letter to the Court (dated before the punishment hearing and file stamped afterwards) indicating that her "goal is to remain clean and sober and to apply [her] skills to find gainful employment again so that [she] may reunite with [her] daughter." (CR:44-45; see also RR3:13). 1 Viewing the circumstances of the offense and relying on the entire record, this Court may find that by ordering the Appellant to SAFP, the trial judge implicitly found that Appellant is a suitable candidate for treatment in SAFP. See Monse v. State, Nos CR and CR, 1999 Tex. App. LEX IS 6976 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 16, 1999, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (finding record facts to support implied findings that drug or alcohol abuse 1 Although Appellant indicates that there are 3 pages of her letter, two pages were ultimately scanned into the Clerk's Record. (CR:44-45). Furthermore, Appellant's behavior became more bizarre throughout the plea hearing and she ultimately refused to sign her plea papers. (See generally RR3:12-17). 8

14 significantly contributed to the commission of the offense and that defendant would be a good candidate for SAFP treatment where he was arrested on numerous occasions for public intoxication, he admitted to a long history of alcohol and drug abuse, an evaluation resulted in a recommendation for alcohol and substance abuse and counseling, the pre-sentence investigation report, which was before the judge at sentencing, also reflected a history of extensive drug use, and the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty was for stealing beer). For all the forgoing reasons, Appellant's point should be overruled. PRAYER The State prays that this Honorable Court will affirm the judgment of the trial court. CRAIG WATKINS Criminal District Attorney Dallas County, Texas Assistant Di t Attor ey State Bar No Frank Crowley Courts B g 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19 Dallas, Texas (214) / fax I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing brief was served on GEORGE R. CONKEY, attorney for Appellant, 4347 West Northwest Highway, Suite 120, #132, Dallas, Texas by United StateAmail at the foregoing address, and by at on o~~july

Nos. 05-11-01575-CR and 05-11-01576-CR The State Waives Oral Argument 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 06/04/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS MARK

No. 05-10-01016-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS FRED ANDERSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County,

NO. 05-10-01117-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS COREY TERRELL GARDNER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT RANDY ERIC WORSHAM, APPELLANT NO. 05-10-01017-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE APPEALED FROM CAUSE NUMBER F07-55075 IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT

NO. 05-11-00657-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 03/23/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk GLEN FRAZIER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 23, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01390-CR LUIS ANTONIO RIQUIAC QUEUNAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal

The State requests oral argument only if Appellant argues No. 05-10-00503-CR No. 05-10-00504-CR 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 5/18/1// 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT

Affirmed and Opinion filed April 12, 2001. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-99-00894-CR MYRNA DURON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 351st District Court Harris County,

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ROBERT E. WHEELER, Respondent, Appellant. WD76448 OPINION FILED: August 19, 2014 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Caldwell County,

Reverse and Render; Opinion filed December 22, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01645-CV THE COLLIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Appellant V. HAYDEN SELBY

No. 05-11-00531-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 02/23/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk ALFONSO ARMENDARIZ ZUNIGA, Appellant vs. THE STATE

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN ON MOTION FOR REHEARING NO. 03-09-00543-CR NO. 03-09-00544-CR Andrew Richard Burke III, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 121065-U Order filed

ABATE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed February 4, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01186-CR LAURA SANDERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00509-CR Glenn JOHNSON, Appellant v. The State of The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County,

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY THE STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff, vs. Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense) COMES NOW the above-named Defendant

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 23, 2012 at Knoxville STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MISTY LYNN NANNEY Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County Nos.

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-10-00205-CR RAY BOYD ASHLOCK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court Fannin

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNCTION OF A.G. O P I N I O N No. 08-12-00174-CV Appeal from 171st District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC # 2012-DVC02875)

[Cite as State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-3925.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101064 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ALLEN QUARTERMAN

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-15-00054-CR NATHAN JOEL NICHOLS JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County,

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed March 19, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00443-CR DAVID GUTIERREZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th

A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement

NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 130903-U NO. 4-13-0903

Office of the Attorney General Information for Crime Victims and Witnesses MARCH 2009 LAWRENCE WASDEN Attorney General Criminal Law Division Special Prosecutions Unit Telephone: (208) 332-3096 Fax: (208)

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DERRICK S. CHANEY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. II-22-201

2014 IL App (1st) 120762-U No. 1-12-0762 FIFTH DIVISION February 28, 2014 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO FILED BY CLERK JAN 31 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, v. SCOTT ALAN COLVIN, Appellant, Appellee. 2 CA-CR 2012-0099 DEPARTMENT

ENROLLED Regular Session, 1997 HOUSE BILL NO. 2412 BY REPRESENTATIVE JACK SMITH AN ACT To enact Chapter 33 of Title 13 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 13:5301 through 5304,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 25, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-10-00525-CR WILLIAM HOWARD CAVE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal

STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O clock M CLERK, DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, vs. STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. JAVIER TERRAZAS, Appellant, Appellee. No. 08-12-00095-CR Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas

Section 15-23-60 Definitions. As used in this article, the following words shall have the following meanings: (1) ACCUSED. A person who has been arrested for committing a criminal offense and who is held

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00223-CV In re The State of Texas ex rel. Jennifer A. Tharp ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N In this original

Affirmed and Opinion filed November 8, 2001. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-00880-CR JOHN CARROLL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from 248th District Court Harris County,

[Cite as State v. Quarterman, 2014-Ohio-5796.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101064 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ALLEN QUARTERMAN

Patricia A. DeAngelis District Attorney GETTING TO KNOW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AN OFFENSE IS COMMITTED There are three types of offenses that can be committed in New York State: VIOLATION MISDEMEANOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) ) PETITION TO ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY (Misdemeanor) I,, respectfully represent

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 11, 2015 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DUSTY ROSS BINKLEY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2009-I-833 Steve R. Dozier,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWIN SCARBOROUGH, Defendant Below- Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below- Appellee. No. 38, 2014 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware,

CAVEAT: This sample is provided to demonstrate style and format. It is not intended as a model for the substantive argument, and therefore counsel should not rely on its legal content which may include

DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS This pamphlet has been provided to help you better understand the federal

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-07-159-CV JACK WHITE APPELLANT V. GAIL WHITE APPELLEE ------------ FROM THE 90TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS DAVID MORALES, Appellant, V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. O P I N I O N No. 08-05-00201-CR Appeal from the 409th District Court of El Paso County,

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-08-039-CR CASEY J. MOORE APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 12, 2014 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TYRONE R. TEASLEY Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County Nos. II-CR017000,

DRUG COURT DEFERRED JUDGMENT INFORMATION SHEET If you have been charged with a crime involving possession of a controlled substance and/or possession of drug paraphernalia, you may be eligible to participate

DRUG COURT PLEA PACKET To be completed and submitted by the Defense Attorney. Attorney s Instructions are as follows: 1. This packet includes the following forms: Intent to Plea; Application; Plea Bargain

General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-425 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RITA SENSAT ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 18,062-06 HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-02-349-CV JOHN EDWARD MULLER APPELLANT V. DEIDRE DENISE MULLER APPELLEE ------------ FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY ------------

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES I. MISSION The Illinois General Assembly has recognized that there is a critical need for a criminal justice program that will reduce the

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 16, 2001 Session STEVE EDWARD HOUSTON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Giles County No. 9082 Robert L. Jones,

Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part, and Opinion filed February 14, 2002. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-01071-CV WILLIAM DAVID GOLDEN, Appellant V. DONALD RAY McNEAL and SHIRLEY

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-1742 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nicholas

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT RENE C. LEVARIO v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/23/2010 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT P. KREBS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA FREDDIE LEE MARTIN A/K/A FREDDIE L. MARTIN APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/08/2013 TRIAL JUDGE:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, No. 169, 2014 Plaintiff-Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court v. of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County ANDY LABOY,

Opinion issued June 11, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00636-CV SINHUE TEMPLOS, Appellant V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

CHARLES EDWARD DAVIS, Applicant-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015 STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County,

ARTICLE 36: KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES (a) Mission: The Illinois General Assembly has recognized that there is a critical need for a criminal justice program that will reduce

Restoration of Civil Rights Helping People regain their Civil Liberties Consequences of a Felony Food Stamps and social security benefits: People convicted of a felony for possession or sell of controlled

Judgment rendered June 20, 2007. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C.Cr.P. No. 42,124-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 2000 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTHONY ROBERTS Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 98-T-431 Frank G. Clement, Jr.,